Sunday, October 6, 2013

Catholic Hospital Involved in Unethical Circumcision Trial!

Take a look at this study, set up by Trihealth, INC. WHAT is going on here? Parents are going to be solicited to enroll their male infants into a study comparing two clamps used for nontherapeutic circumcision.

They claim the purpose is to decide which clamp causes less pain. (Note the concession that pain results, regardless of method.)

But then they state they will be collecting data on bleeding results, parental satisfaction results, botched circumcision results etc. (Note that the timeframes for many of these seem inappropriately short, such as measuring bleeding only 10 minutes after the surgery.)

Babies enrolled in this study will be circumcised at Good Samaritan Hospital, which as the Facebook page proudly claims, "is the pre-eminent Catholic hospital in the community."

So let's get this straight. Non-consenting babies are going to be enrolled in a study to purportedly track which nontherapeutic surgery method has "less" pain, but the study will also measure other factors such as hemorrhage, injuries and infections, all with conveniently short timeframes, and this is going to happen at a proudly Catholic hospital?

Am I the last sane person on earth?

It gets worse. It appears Triealth made an erroneous comment about Catholic teaching:

"At Good Samaritan Hospital it is understood that patient care, education and research respect and support the total good of the patient and uphold the sanctity of human life and the principles of Catholic teaching. The circumcision study compares two medically accepted circumcision processes. Only after the parent or guardian requests and consents to circumcision for their infant, is informed consent sought for this study; they are free to decline their child’s participation in this study. Steps to ensure pain relief are integral to the study protocol. Male infant circumcision has been practiced for centuries and is not among the procedures prohibited in the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services."

That last part, bold added by me, is true only in that the Ethical and Religious Directives doesn't mention infant circumcision as a separate topic at all in the entire document. The statement made by Trihealth seems to imply it's not prohibited, versus not being mentioned directly. Very disingenuous.

"31. No one should be the subject of medical or genetic experimentation, even if it is

therapeutic, unless the person or surrogate first has given free and informed consent. In instances

of nontherapeutic experimentation, the surrogate can give this consent only if the experiment

entails no significant risk to the person’s well-being. Moreover, the greater the person’s

incompetency and vulnerability, the greater the reasons must be to perform any medical

experimentation, especially nontherapeutic."

Or how about this one:

51. Nontherapeutic experiments on a living embryo or fetus are not permitted, even with

the consent of the parents. Therapeutic experiments are permitted for a proportionate reason with

the free and informed consent of the parents or, if the father cannot be contacted, at least of the

mother. Medical research that will not harm the life or physical integrity of an unborn child is

permitted with parental consent.33

It IS too bad the directive doesn't explicitly have a statement on nontherapeutic circumcision of infants (both male and female). In fact, since nothing is said about female infant circumcision, are we to assume that female circumcision is approved as well? What about just taking a chainsaw to baby arms for that matter? No mention of chainsaw amputation in the article so go for it?

Nonetheless, the related statements clearly show that nontherapeutic circumcision experimentation on baby boys should be prohibited. But Catholic hospitals should already know this. There's certainly no confusion when it comes to Catholic teaching on unnecessary medical procedures, forced medical procedures and amputations:

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops asserts:

"All persons served by Catholic health care have the right and duty to protect and preserve their bodily and functional integrity. The functional integrity of the person may be sacrificed to maintain the health or life of the person when no other morally permissible means is available. (Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (Fifth Edition, 2009), n. 29.)
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

"Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against moral law." (CCC, n. 2297)

What is infant circumcision?

This procedure in America is the removal of the prepuce organ. The prepuce, or foreskin in layperson terms, is a functioning organ of the body. During circumcision surgery, the organ is pulled away from the glans penis and then cut or clamped off the body.

"Amputation is the intentional surgical removal of a limb or body part. It is performed to remove diseased tissue or relieve pain."

How sad! Even the medical definition of amputation clearly states that removal of a body part is done for disease and pain, neither of which are present in a healthy newborn about to undergo forced amputation of his prepuce organ!

Infant circumcision is forced amputation of a healthy, functioning body part on a nonconsenting, innocent person. It clearly violates Catholic teaching and ethical health care directives. Don't be fooled by Trihealth's statement!

29. "All persons served by Catholic health care have the right and duty to protect and preserve their bodily and functional integrity."

4. "...medical research must adhere to Catholic moral principles."

5. "Catholic health care services must adopt these Directives as policy, require adherence to them within the institution as a condition for medical privileges and employment, and provide appropriate instruction regarding the Directives for administration, medical and nursing staff, and other personnel."

9. "Employees of a Catholic health care institution must respect and uphold the religious mission of the institution and adhere to these Directives. They should maintain professional standards and promote the institution’s commitment to human dignity and the common good."

23. "The inherent dignity of the human person must be respected and protected regardless of the nature of the person’s health problem or social status. The respect for human dignity extends to all persons who are served by Catholic health care."

In 1977, Directive 33 of the ERDs stated that "unnecessary procedures, whether diagnostic or therapeutic, are morally objectionable."

Here's my comment on this study which WLWT continues to censor on their web page: http://www.wlwt.com/news/local-news/hamilton-county/protesters-ask-good-samaritan-hospital-to-stop-circumcision-study/-/13550662/22256068/-/96bd85z/-/index.html No need to mention a prohibition non therapeutic amputations: they are already a long standing and integral part of the Catholic Catechism article 2297: " Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law." http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm Who could be more innocent than a newborn baby? And who should be at the forefront of applying Church teaching and morals in enforcing the prohibition of this painful and condemned experiment, exercising his pastoral duties, if not Archbishop Schnurr. If the Archbishop would review the many acts of health and healing that Jesus did, he will not encounter a single circumcision let alone a National Socialist style, unanesthetized foreskin amputation experiment involving 200 unconsenting and innocent babies. The Archbishop is fully aware of this painful situation yet remains absent and silent while innocents suffer needlessly. Does he think the abrogation of his Pastoral responsibilities in this matter will go unnoticed by Rome? And what must be in the minds of the faithful who read his press release where he argues that " Male infant circumcision has been practiced for centuries...", as a justification to continue this ancient ritual practice? Isn't this exactly what the slave owners said to Abraham Lincoln? Archbishop Schnurr, come into the modern times and into accord with the Catechism of Holy Mother the Church. End this evil experiment now.

I am a practicing Catholic. I am aware the Catholic Church forbids infant circumcision on the grounds that it is non-therapeutic amputation and mutilation and therefore against the moral law. Catholics are required to respect bodily integrity. Lack of respect for bodily integrity is viewed as a violation of the 5th Commandment, Thou shalt not kill. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994).

I was neonatally circumcised in 1974 at a Catholic hospital, Holy Name Hospital, without my consent and without my parents' informed consent. When my son was born this year, the nurses at the hospital kept asking, "Are we circumcising?" Each time I replied, "No."

I am angered and saddened that the American Catholic church allows this heinous experiment to take place in a Catholic hospital. I am angered and saddened that the American Catholic church allows non-therapeutic circumcision surgeries on non-consenting minors in Catholic hospitals. We now know babies feel pain more than adults do. We now know this surgery causes sexual and psychological harm. We now know the foreskin is an integral part of the male sexual apparatus. http://circumcision.org/studies.htm

The Catholic Church teaches that God created us in God's image and likeness (Gn 1:27-28). It follows then that God created males with normal, healthy foreskins for the purpose of protecting the glans, providing natural lubrication to prevent dryness, and contributing significantly to the sexual response of the intact male.

Catholic men and Catholic women are the Catholic church. It is time we become activists and educate each other about the harms and the reality that it continues because it is a profit-making industry and men don't speak out against their circumcisers.

So it is an excuse to solicit parents to have this done, as well as to have it funded based on the implication that no one has any a priori belief against it. This will also advertise to parents that it is never questioned (they wouldn't do "which type of something evil"). I don't think the people pushing this are necessarily being sneaky on purpose, just trying to fool themselves. But they must also be aware of how the nature of this study attempts to crush any idea that RIC should not be performed. As long as it can be funded they will believe it is a good thing to do, when they can't feed themselves with the practice they will know its wrong. This is a method of propaganda to violate human rights. Luckily, they are also espousing information that will go against their own appeal because they are also asking people to research circumcision, which will inevitably lead them to a better education of it a la the internet!